THE Crown Prosecution Service is “bowing to political pressure” by letting suspected criminals go free to save on Legal Aid costs, it was claimed yesterday.

The Old Bailey in London - CPS are under fire for letting criminals go due to the cost of a defence [GETTY]

It is worrying that they are now more concerned with the cost of legal aid for the other side, rather than a fair outcome

A source

It comes after a judge was forced to dismiss a Class A drug-dealing case after prosecutors withdrew evidence on the second day of trial, allegedly because of concerns over how much the defence would cost the taxpayer.

A source said: “It seems the CPS took a view that it would cost so much for the defence counsel to pore through the thousands of pages of mobile phone data, that it was not worth it.

“It is worrying that they are now more concerned with the cost of legal aid for the other side, rather than a fair outcome.”

In his judgment at Blackfriars Crown Court, His Hon Judge Peter Murphy accused the CPS of “wilful, calculated and prolonged disobedience” in not submitting the full transcripts.

He said: “What is disturbing about this is that I was told very candidly that the application by the Crown was being made primarily on financial grounds.

“If I am understanding that correctly, I think it means that there are financial implications in serving a large number of pages of evidence that then have to be reviewed by defence counsel.

“Whether this, or any other financial considerations are involved, it is in my view quite wrong for such considerations to stand in the way of the Crown properly complying with its disclosure obligations.”

Michael Turner QC, the former head of the Criminal Bar Association, last night said he feared the CPS was putting cost before fairness. “This is a sinister and a dangerous development. The CPS deliberately failed in its duty to disclose the full evidence with sufficient time for the defence to analyse it.

“If, as His Hon Judge Murphy indicated, the decision to drop the case was based on financial grounds, it is very worrying. The CPS would already have examined the evidence, because they had already cherry-picked the bits they wanted to rely on. The only concern was the cost to defence counsel of poring through thousands of pages.

“The CPS is duty-bound to consider its own costs before prosecution but defence costs should play no part in their thinking when you have a suspected Class A drug-dealer and two suspected money launderers.”

He said the fact that the CPS, funded directly by the Treasury, is now concerning itself with the cost of Legal Aid incurred by defence counsel, who answer to the Ministry of Justice, shows it was “clearly being influenced by political motivations; what it would cost the Treasury to defend this case”.

He added: “So what happens in the future? Will their duty to disclose all evidence to the defence be compromised by how much it will cost? This risks dramatically affecting the fairness of any trial.”

A CPS spokesman said: “The Code for Crown Prosecutors states that factors relevant to the public interest of any prosecution include consideration of the cost to the CPS and the wider criminal justice system where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty. This, however, is never a deciding factor on its own.”